2009 Flood

[Bison Dan]

In the comments section of a recent Forum article, a meteorologist from the NWS-GF office wrote some pretty detailed posts(on his own time/computer). He talked about how the USGS and the NWS feed data to the River Forecast Center(RFC) in Chanhassen, which runs the computer models and sends the results back to NWS-GF for public release. He also talked about what happened the week before the Fargo crest. Apparently, on Thursday(?) before the crest, the RFC-C was predicting 41 feet and was feeling pretty confident in the prediction. In a meeting early that afternoon, the NWS-GF presented that info to Walaker. Later that afternoon, the NWS headquarters in Washington got involved due to the national news coverage and pressed the RFC-C for the worst-case scenario, which was 42 feet with a possibility of 43. The headquarters then contacted NWS-GF and overruled the earlier prediction and instructed them to use the worst-case scenario from RFC-C. The headquarters even required the NWS-GF to send the press releases to them for approval before releasing them to the public and city leaders. This is what caused the forecast to rise to 43 feet just a few hours after the 41 foot prediction given to Walaker and the other city leaders(it's also the one that pissed Walaker off).

The meteorologist then went on to say that it was his predictions of a warmer week that threw off the original prediction by 1/4-1/2 foot. The colder temps slowed the melt/runoff which lead to a 40.82 crest, rather than the 41 foot prediction. Regarding the upcoming crest, he said he's talked with the RFC-C and their computer models are "unusually confident" of a crest of over 38 feet. Though he didn't state it in the posts I read, I suspect the NWS headquarters is still forcing the GF office to release the worst-case scenarios, rather than what the models are actually predicting. I'm guessing a 38-39 foot second crest, with the possibility of 39-41 if we get significant precipitation in the basin. Unless some really bad things happen, I seriously doubt we'll see last week's record broken.

They just lowered it to 38-40

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/236570/group/home/

[Hammersmith]

They just lowered it to 38-40

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/236570/group/home/

Holy crap; I'm psychic! Thank god I bought that lottery ticket on Sunday. New Fargodome arena, here we come.

Seriously, I hope this is an indication that the NWS headquarters is backing off and letting the local and regional branches do their jobs.

[LB#11]

Seriously, I hope this is an indication that the NWS headquarters is backing off and letting the local and regional branches do their jobs.

I totally agree...I'll take Denny's 30 years of experience & the great leadership we have here in Fargo over the NWS. That being said, I'm very happy with the NWS reading of 38-40ft...hopefully no more sandbagging later this week.

[redwing77]

I was just in Fargo and I can't tell you a single person I've talked to that put any credence in the NWS.

They all said it will crest again at no higher than 40 feet.

There is a possibility of error, as there always is, but I think the worst is over.

Next we can start building nice beaches on our lakefront with all the used sand.

[HockeyHigh]

I was just in Fargo and I can't tell you a single person I've talked to that put any credence in the NWS.

They all said it will crest again at no higher than 40 feet.

There is a possibility of error, as there always is, but I think the worst is over.

Next we can start building nice beaches on our lakefront with all the used sand.

That's a good idea, but I don't think the sand in the bags is even near the quality needed for a walkable beach. Lots of jagged rocks and such. Though it would be nice to make all the lakes beaches larger with the plethora of sand in the valley.

[Smoggy]

The different mentalities between GF and Fargo is really interesting. Fargo doesn't believe in the predictions and actually believes the numbers to be to high. GF used the predictions in 97 and ended up not having the dikes high enough. This year with our protection up here in greater GF I was really surprised at how many people believed the NWS was wrong and it would go higher than the predictions so they were all moving between the cities and staying in hotels.

one of the things that Fargo smartly did compared to EGF/GF was build contingency dikes well ahead of breaches. I don't remember those in the area until after breaches.

[siouxperseven]

The different mentalities between GF and Fargo is really interesting. Fargo doesn't believe in the predictions and actually believes the numbers to be to high. GF used the predictions in 97 and ended up not having the dikes high enough. This year with our protection up here in greater GF I was really surprised at how many people believed the NWS was wrong and it would go higher than the predictions so they were all moving between the cities and staying in hotels.

one of the things that Fargo smartly did compared to EGF/GF was build contingency dikes well ahead of breaches. I don't remember those in the area until after breaches.

The thing about GF is their are to many peopel in charge and not once person to take chare. Back in "97" the people along Reeves and Belmont didn't want the dirt in their area's or affect the view of the course. In Fargo they will build the dikes and could care less what the higher end homes think. To me.....that is a huge difference and the main one. The mayor of Fargo is a take charge guy! And I've lived in GF most of my life.

[fightingsioux4life]

The thing about GF is their are to many peopel in charge and not once person to take chare. Back in "97" the people along Reeves and Belmont didn't want the dirt in their area's or affect the view of the course. In Fargo they will build the dikes and could care less what the higher end homes think. To me.....that is a huge difference and the main one. The mayor of Fargo is a take charge guy! And I've lived in GF most of my life.

I like Fargo's current mayor (much more than their previous mayor), but the upcoming fight for permanent flood protection for Fargo will test his leadership skills to the limit. People will whine and moan that they cannot have the dikes on the banks of the river itself. People will scream bloody murder at the cost of the project. People in small-town North Dakota (especially west of a Jamestown to Devils Lake line) will howl at the prospect of helping to pay for it. Fargo will run into a lot of the same obstacles as Grand Forks did in the 1999 ND Legislative Session, with one major difference. We have a living, breathing example that this type of comprehensive and permanent flood protection works and is worth every penny; the system that Grand Forks fought so hard for. That will make it hard for the "no" crowd to claim that it isn't a "feasible" use of taxpayer funds or that "there is no proof that it will ever work". I wish Fargo (and don't forget Moorhead) all the best in this fight.

[brianvf]

The thing about GF is their are to many peopel in charge and not once person to take chare.

[BringDeanBack]

The different mentalities between GF and Fargo is really interesting. Fargo doesn't believe in the predictions and actually believes the numbers to be to high. GF used the predictions in 97 and ended up not having the dikes high enough. This year with our protection up here in greater GF I was really surprised at how many people believed the NWS was wrong and it would go higher than the predictions so they were all moving between the cities and staying in hotels.

one of the things that Fargo smartly did compared to EGF/GF was build contingency dikes well ahead of breaches. I don't remember those in the area until after breaches.

In all fairness to Grand Forks, when a crest comes in 5 feet above the prediction, there's not much you can do. If Fargo would have come in 5 feet higher than predicted this year, Mayor Denny wouldn't look like such a know it all. In 1997, I don't think Grand Forks could have built their main line dikes high enough (Weren't they 49-50 ft with 2 ft of "freeboard"). Add to that some of the crappy concrete dikes like in Lincoln Park area (Which I think was the first area to start leaking) and the front line dikes were just not good enough.

However, Grand Forks does deserve full blame in 1997 for not having a backup plan/contingency dikes.

[FightingSiouxnerd]

In all fairness to Grand Forks, when a crest comes in 5 feet above the prediction, there's not much you can do. If Fargo would have come in 5 feet higher than predicted this year, Mayor Denny wouldn't look like such a know it all. In 1997, I don't think Grand Forks could have built their main line dikes high enough (Weren't they 49-50 ft with 2 ft of "freeboard"). Add to that some of the crappy concrete dikes like in Lincoln Park area (Which I think was the first area to start leaking) and the front line dikes were just not good enough.

However, Grand Forks does deserve full blame in 1997 for not having a backup plan/contingency dikes.

All of this stuff about GF flodding in 1997 is making me sad!

[redwing77]

Anyone know what's going to be done with all the sand, sandbags, and so forth?

I'm out of the loop so I don't know if everything is back to normal or not.

It's going to be/is one heckuva cleanup job even without the damage.

[GeauxSioux]

Obama flunks Global Warming 101 on Fargo

This piece is not so much an indictment of Obama as it is a geologic history of the RRV.

I find the last two sentences of the piece especially poignant for our country today...

As Lincoln said,

[SoonersNSioux]

Ay... time for the friendly neighborhood meteorologist to chime in:

A two-degree warmer North Dakota would mean less snowfall, therefore less flooding

2 degrees warmer when it's already below freezing = potentially more snow because now you have higher moisture content... these are the type of relationships that make climate modeling difficult.

[Big A HG]

Ay... time for the friendly neighborhood meteorologist to chime in:

2 degrees warmer when it's already below freezing = potentially more snow because now you have higher moisture content... these are the type of relationships that make climate modeling difficult.

But, over the course of a winter, there are far fewer of the drastically below freezing days than the slightly warmer ones.

[Hammersmith]

Ay... time for the friendly neighborhood meteorologist to chime in:

2 degrees warmer when it's already below freezing = potentially more snow because now you have higher moisture content... these are the type of relationships that make climate modeling difficult.

Isn't it also possible that greater temps in the oceans will both increase the amount of moisture pulled from the Pacific as the winds pass over it and also strengthen the power of storms that move through the Gulf of Mexico? Stronger GoM storms result in more powerful low-pressure systems that can end up pulling cold Canadian/Arctic air further south than normal. With the way weather works in this part of the country, I would expect that global warming would result in hotter summers and colder winters with periods of extreme snowfall.

Or do I have no idea what I'm talking about?

[The Sicatoka]

I have a simple question for the gallery:

Which would be worse for humanity?

A) global warming

B) global cooling

Hint:

Think about land suitable for growing food before you answer.

Imagine if the wheat belt extended further north, or ended at Omaha.

Now, back to flood 2009:

Folks, this one's not over for people in Valley City, Lisbon, and all the areas affected when the Sheyenne busted out downstream of Lisbon (Davenport, Walcott). The area north of Fargo where the Rush, Maple, and Sheyenne all come together to spill into the Red will be a lake for the foreseeable future and that affects many people also. Let's not forget about them.

[SoonersNSioux]

Or do I have no idea what I'm talking about?

Sure... it's a very complex scenario. You could foreseeably get more moisture off the oceans/gulf. On the other hand, global warming primarily occurs at the poles. Well if temperatures warm more at the poles than at the tropics, then the temperature gradient is weaker... right? Well the strength of our jet stream is also a function of that gradient, so it's possible storms could be weaker or shifted N/S.

Which would be worse for humanity?

A) global warming

B) global cooling

Well I know I'd take a for us in ND... of course the big thing is how it causes regional climate change. Some places benefit, others don't (parts of Africa for example).

I tell everyone that we can bicker all we want over who/what is causing climate change (I have my opinions based on what I know), but in the big scheme of things, does it really matter? We might as well try and develop alternative sources of energy and decrease pollution for health and our future generations and for US economic reasons anyway. The key is doing it without going broke or injuring the economy in the process.

[jimdahl]

Free beer

Mayor Walaker comes through on his promise and "buys" everyone a beer (though it's not actually costing him anything).

I haven't seen Dixie's eponymous beer (though perhaps in Louisiana), but the Blackened Voodoo has long seemed somewhat nationally available.

Beer Advocate: Dixie Blackened Voodoo Lager